On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:55:20 PM +0100 Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: [...]Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have just had an RFC published from an I-D named as an individual submission, and the work item we're currently spending most of our cycles on is something we inherited from CAT which still has a draft-cat-* filename. Ironically, the only confusion I'm aware of is in the part of Henrik's excellent WG status pages, which don't recognize that these documents belong to us (I understand he's working on a way to fix that).
Fixed as of today for active drafts. Unfortunately, this is based on the information in 1id-index.txt, which only gives the draft -> WG association for active drafts. Currently I don't have any good source of draft -> WG associations for published, replaced or expired drafts.
Talk about great timing! Thanks.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf